City of
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
May 17, 2010
Present: Commissioners Gardiner, Lewis, Noraas, Rosenthal; City Council Liaison
Absent: Commissioner Eggers
Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Parks office,
CIP BONDING
Robertson said the commission previously discussed leveraging Food and Beverage Tax funds for capital improvement projects. He said Rosenthal asked if the commission ever voted on purchasing the 3.7 acres located on lower Clay and staff researched the matter and found that a vote never occurred. He asked the commission if they wished to proceed with the land purchase.
Administrative Services and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg said bond counsel could help the commission determine whether to bond or borrow for the lower
Discussion Among Commissioners
Commissioners voiced comments and concerns about the lower Clay Street land: additional soccer fields were a high priority at one time but might not be at the present time; the land was included on commission goals lists for years; developing the land would make the YMCA Park more useful for citizens wishing to use the park who were not YMCA members; and the importance of providing park land in dense neighborhoods such as lower Clay.
Robertson said the
Tuneberg said the commission would need to write a memo outlining proposed projects along with estimated costs for staff to take to council. If bonding or borrowing were approved, he said all associated projects would need to be completed within 24 months. He said bond counsel preferred bigger projects rather than smaller projects or master plans. Robertson said bigger projects included the golf course irrigation system replacement, tennis court lighting improvements, restroom remodels using a smaller footprint, developing
Robertson said he would compile a list of proposed projects and their estimated costs for the commission’s consideration, discuss leveraging options with Tuneberg, and talk to the City Administrator about possibly purchasing less than 3.7 acres of land at the lower
UPPER
Landscape Architect Kerry KenCairn referenced a letter she wrote to the commission along with two architectural drawings. She said 1) the city required treatment of the stormwater coming off the paved surfaces at the Chitwood site prior to its entrance into the existing piped system or the natural creek area, and 2) Chitwood Lane was uphill from this proposed project, on the downhill side of the Ashlander Apartments, and there were no existing utility easements through the Ashlander apartment complex. She said she needed to facilitate the removal and treatment of stormwater from the site prior to its entrance into either the existing city stormwater system or the existing creek channel. She said space was not available on the development site for such a treatment swale and the land that was available and viable belonged to Parks. She suggested crafting an agreement with the commission to facilitate the project in exchange for reciprocal services, cash, or development work.
Robertson said the commission previously agreed to sell a corner section of land to the developers and were now asked to relinquish another section for the housing project. He asked what KenCairn would charge for a park master plan of that size, including all the amenities selected by the commission. He questioned whether RVCDC would be willing to pay for her master planning services in exchange for project facilitation. He said the typical public process associated with master planning could proceed but in a shorter timeframe, with a preliminary drawing prepared and a public meeting scheduled for neighboring residents.
Discussion Among Commissioners
Commissioners spoke favorably about the concept of trading master planning services for project facilitation.
Robertson said he would speak with the City Attorney and Finance Director about the proposal.
Dials said
Discussion Among Commissioners
Commissioners agreed that the existing park signage was confusing, with some signs indicating “No Dogs Allowed” and others directing park patrons to the “dog friendly” trail section via paw prints. Noraas suggested rethinking the “no dogs” policy in city parks, especially in cases such as
Staff was directed to include the item on the May 24 regular meeting agenda.
ADJOURNMENT– By consensus, Gardiner adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard,